Paranoia About Immigrants, The Danger of Fear

Fear usually trumps most other emotions. It has to, if we are to survive. But it also readily trumps objective reason, which is another effective way for making intelligent decisions about how best to keep ourselves safe. It sounds counterintuitive, but as protective as fear can be, it can also be dangerous.

The Trump Administration's order for 'extreme vetting' of certain immigrants is a sobering example. The Executive Order to limit entry into America by travelers from seven nations that are both Muslim-majority and known to be bases for radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, directly appeals to fear by calling to mind and heart the lingering worry seared into the American psyche on September 11, 2001:

...when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.

But while the President invokes that fearful day in support of his policy—wrapped in extensive pre- and post-election rhetoric about Muslims in general and Islamic jihadist extremism in particular—he is appealing to a fear that, while widely held, vastly exceeds the actual risk he says we need to worry about, claiming that:

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.

The fact—not the alternative fact, but the statistically verifiable fact—is that those "numerous" crimes related to radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorism aren't really all that numerous. According to New America, a non-partisan think tank that closely monitors this risk:

In the fifteen years after 9/11, jihadists have killed 94 people inside the United States. Each of those deaths is a tragedy. The attack in Orlando was the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 and the deadliest mass shooting in American history. However, the attacks are not national catastrophes of the type the United States experienced on 9/11. Instead the death toll has been quite similar to other forms of political—and even non-political—violence Americans face today.

Ninety-four deaths since 2001 by this sort of attack, across a population that averaged about 300 million over that period of time, comes to roughly one person per three million, a rate of 0.0000003. You'd be hard pressed to find a risk of any kind that poses less of a threat to the safety of the average American. But then, risk perception—fear—is much more a matter of how we feel about the facts than about the facts alone. And the threat of terrorism from radical fundamentalist Islamists has all sorts of unique emotional characteristics that make it way scarier than the numbers alone warrant.

We are more frightened by any threat about which we feel uncertain, and terrorism has all sorts of unknowns; who will attack, where, when, how, targeting whom? We just don't know, which leaves us feeling vulnerable, powerless, and more afraid.

We are more frightened by risks that we think can happen to us personally, as opposed to threats to someone else, and terrorism is so random and occurs in such public places that it feels like we are all potential targets.

We are way more frightened by risks that get lots of attention, and it's safe to say that the 94 deaths from jihadist terrorism have gotten vastly more attention than most of the threats that threaten us far more.

And of course we are way more frightened by risks that target our tribe, as the President depicts the "THEM coming to get US" nature of radical Islamic terrorism, though jihad has killed far more people elsewhere than here. Humans are social animals and acutely sensitive to threats to the tribe(s) with which we identify. An attack on anyone in our tribe feels like a personal attack as well.

But a nearly similar number of people, 26%, fear the new rules will make them less safe. ISIS is already using the new rules as a recruiting tool and rallying cry. Hate crimes fueled by the ban's targeting of Muslim countries will certainly victimize many more people than will jihadist terrorism. The support in the battle against such terrorism that governments need from the vast Muslim community that abhors and rejects such violence, may weaken. The international relations that facilitate sharing of intelligence in fighting terrorism by Islamic extremists are also threatened. And these new rules unquestionably create a new and less welcoming environment for Americans traveling abroad, and even greater divisiveness among Americans at home.

A cold-hearted assessment of the facts suggest that the protection from these rules will most likely be outweighed by the many dangers they create. But how we see potential danger and choose to protect ourselves is far more a matter of how we feel than an objective assessment of the evidence alone. And as history has taught us (and is teaching us with the election of Donald Trump and this new immigration policy), fear may be the most powerful feeling of all, and though it helps us survive, one of the most dangerous.

My notion is that most of us humans are driven by fear in almost everything we do. So Trump or no Trump, terrorism or no terrorism, I don't see any difference between how fear is impacting us now,
5 years ago, 20 years ago or 500 years ago. It's the same thing expressed differently because of different circumstances and environments.

We all play the fear game with ourselves and we all game the system using fear to our advantage from Wall Street to french communist unions, from Fidel Castro to right wing dictators. All different expression of the same thing.

I don't see any general solution to this, we need to work out our own fears to the best we can.

Of course America needs a reasonably efficient but thorough system to vet immigrants. All countries vet immigrants. There is nothing wrong with that. Of course we do not want to let in those with dangerous communicable diseases, or criminal backgrounds (wanted criminals), etc. Or those who belong to organizations who want to overthrow our country (like ISIS.)

You can play with the statistics all you like, but the US is part of the world, and the world statistics for terrorism are horrific. In the month of September, 2017, in 22 countries, there were 878 killed and 760 injured through terrorism. In just the last week, 444 people were killed and 114 injured in 13 countries. Rape statistics are equally shocking.

It is actually a case of “THEM against US” - they say so themselves! You can find countless videos and recordings where they say their aim is to destroy democracy and kill all non-Muslims. They preach it in mosques everywhere. The Quran is full of it: Jihad is a command, not a choice (though some good souls choose to live in peace with others)

It isn’t ‘fear’ that has brought about stringent vetting of immigrants from Islamic countries: it’s common sense. It’s the president’s job to protect the people of his country to the best of his/her ability. Trust tribalism to trash Trump!

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. You're right that there are people, in a well-identified group, that are out to harm America. I would respectfully disagree that the "THEM" is ALL immigrants to America. Or all immigrants from Islamic countries. Or that the "THEM" is all people who follow Islam. There are violent radical fundamentalist Muslims, and Christians and Jews and Hindus, who kill others in the name of their religions. But the vast majority?" in all cases follow the shared core teachings of Abraham and Jesus and Muhammad and the central principles of nearly all faiths when it comes to how one is supposed to treat other people. So the "THEY" are only a tiny minority of the tens of millions of people who for the most part are just like you and me. That may not be how the vast majority are portrayed in the ideologically-informed social media and talk radio worlds, that simplify and lump everybody together. But I try to be careful about making sweeping generalizations and assumptions, about people and issues, just because those around me hold those views. That is the danger of tribalism that I write about. Be well.

David, thank you for your response. It is a common response to claim that Christians, Jews and Hindus violently kill others in the name of religion, but that’s a false argument. The Crusades ended a long time ago, and they were, in fact, a defensive response to Muslim brutality.

Would you be comfortable with Neo-Nazi immigrants? How about Ku Klux Klan members? How about Stalinists or Maoists on a mission? If your answer is “yes”, then I would have to question why you have so little concern for your personal safety or the safety of others. If you answer “no”, then I would say you have healthy and rational concerns, which, like it or not, stem from fear.

All people are basically the same, but ideology is not. A good ideology can inspire people to do great things, but a bad ideology can turn those same people into monsters. I fear those who devoutly follow a bad ideology. A “phobia” is an irrational fear: my fears are based on current evidence, actual statistics, 1400 years of history and the source of the ideology itself, which I have studied for many years. Any person who follows the teaching of the Quran and the Hadith should be declared a threat and barred from all democratic countries.